Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1531 | control, N = 771 | treatment, N = 761 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 151 | 50.77 ± 12.58 (25 - 74) | 50.87 ± 12.44 (25 - 74) | 50.67 ± 12.81 (28 - 73) | 0.925 |
Unknown | 2 | 2 | 0 | ||
gender | 153 | 0.882 | |||
f | 118 (77%) | 59 (77%) | 59 (78%) | ||
m | 35 (23%) | 18 (23%) | 17 (22%) | ||
occupation | 153 | 0.810 | |||
day_training | 2 (1.3%) | 2 (2.6%) | 0 (0%) | ||
full_time | 20 (13%) | 10 (13%) | 10 (13%) | ||
homemaker | 14 (9.2%) | 7 (9.1%) | 7 (9.2%) | ||
other | 2 (1.3%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (2.6%) | ||
part_time | 27 (18%) | 13 (17%) | 14 (18%) | ||
retired | 41 (27%) | 20 (26%) | 21 (28%) | ||
self_employ | 7 (4.6%) | 4 (5.2%) | 3 (3.9%) | ||
student | 2 (1.3%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (2.6%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (1.3%) | 1 (1.3%) | 1 (1.3%) | ||
unemploy | 36 (24%) | 20 (26%) | 16 (21%) | ||
marital | 153 | 0.912 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (0.7%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.3%) | ||
divore | 16 (10%) | 10 (13%) | 6 (7.9%) | ||
in_relationship | 4 (2.6%) | 2 (2.6%) | 2 (2.6%) | ||
married | 45 (29%) | 23 (30%) | 22 (29%) | ||
none | 75 (49%) | 36 (47%) | 39 (51%) | ||
seperation | 3 (2.0%) | 2 (2.6%) | 1 (1.3%) | ||
widow | 9 (5.9%) | 4 (5.2%) | 5 (6.6%) | ||
edu | 153 | 0.148 | |||
bachelor | 36 (24%) | 13 (17%) | 23 (30%) | ||
diploma | 30 (20%) | 20 (26%) | 10 (13%) | ||
hd_ad | 5 (3.3%) | 4 (5.2%) | 1 (1.3%) | ||
postgraduate | 13 (8.5%) | 6 (7.8%) | 7 (9.2%) | ||
primary | 9 (5.9%) | 3 (3.9%) | 6 (7.9%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 17 (11%) | 10 (13%) | 7 (9.2%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 36 (24%) | 19 (25%) | 17 (22%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 7 (4.6%) | 2 (2.6%) | 5 (6.6%) | ||
fam_income | 153 | 0.896 | |||
10001_12000 | 6 (3.9%) | 2 (2.6%) | 4 (5.3%) | ||
12001_14000 | 8 (5.2%) | 4 (5.2%) | 4 (5.3%) | ||
14001_16000 | 8 (5.2%) | 3 (3.9%) | 5 (6.6%) | ||
16001_18000 | 4 (2.6%) | 2 (2.6%) | 2 (2.6%) | ||
18001_20000 | 8 (5.2%) | 6 (7.8%) | 2 (2.6%) | ||
20001_above | 29 (19%) | 16 (21%) | 13 (17%) | ||
2001_4000 | 21 (14%) | 12 (16%) | 9 (12%) | ||
4001_6000 | 16 (10%) | 6 (7.8%) | 10 (13%) | ||
6001_8000 | 13 (8.5%) | 7 (9.1%) | 6 (7.9%) | ||
8001_10000 | 11 (7.2%) | 5 (6.5%) | 6 (7.9%) | ||
below_2000 | 29 (19%) | 14 (18%) | 15 (20%) | ||
medication | 153 | 135 (88%) | 68 (88%) | 67 (88%) | 0.976 |
onset_duration | 150 | 15.23 ± 10.51 (0 - 56) | 15.82 ± 11.37 (0 - 56) | 14.61 ± 9.56 (0 - 35) | 0.479 |
Unknown | 3 | 0 | 3 | ||
onset_age | 148 | 35.74 ± 13.93 (10 - 65) | 34.89 ± 12.61 (10 - 61) | 36.62 ± 15.21 (14 - 65) | 0.452 |
Unknown | 5 | 2 | 3 | ||
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1531 | control, N = 771 | treatment, N = 761 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 153 | 3.17 ± 1.17 (1 - 5) | 3.19 ± 1.21 (1 - 5) | 3.14 ± 1.13 (1 - 5) | 0.792 |
recovery_stage_b | 153 | 17.92 ± 2.76 (8 - 24) | 17.87 ± 2.87 (8 - 24) | 17.97 ± 2.66 (13 - 24) | 0.817 |
ras_confidence | 153 | 29.97 ± 5.09 (15 - 45) | 29.74 ± 4.78 (15 - 40) | 30.20 ± 5.40 (18 - 45) | 0.580 |
ras_willingness | 153 | 11.78 ± 2.01 (5 - 15) | 11.68 ± 1.99 (5 - 15) | 11.89 ± 2.03 (7 - 15) | 0.501 |
ras_goal | 153 | 17.41 ± 3.05 (11 - 25) | 17.22 ± 2.85 (11 - 24) | 17.61 ± 3.24 (11 - 25) | 0.437 |
ras_reliance | 153 | 13.21 ± 2.89 (5 - 20) | 13.05 ± 2.76 (5 - 18) | 13.37 ± 3.03 (7 - 20) | 0.500 |
ras_domination | 153 | 9.88 ± 2.40 (3 - 15) | 10.12 ± 2.29 (3 - 15) | 9.64 ± 2.49 (3 - 15) | 0.224 |
symptom | 153 | 29.84 ± 9.09 (14 - 56) | 29.75 ± 9.34 (14 - 55) | 29.93 ± 8.89 (15 - 56) | 0.903 |
slof_work | 153 | 22.51 ± 4.81 (10 - 30) | 22.83 ± 4.32 (13 - 30) | 22.18 ± 5.27 (10 - 30) | 0.407 |
slof_relationship | 153 | 25.21 ± 5.97 (9 - 35) | 24.75 ± 5.94 (9 - 35) | 25.67 ± 6.01 (11 - 35) | 0.344 |
satisfaction | 153 | 20.46 ± 7.13 (5 - 35) | 19.65 ± 6.77 (5 - 33) | 21.29 ± 7.43 (5 - 35) | 0.156 |
mhc_emotional | 153 | 10.84 ± 3.80 (3 - 18) | 10.57 ± 3.67 (3 - 17) | 11.12 ± 3.93 (3 - 18) | 0.375 |
mhc_social | 153 | 14.99 ± 5.59 (5 - 30) | 14.74 ± 5.57 (5 - 30) | 15.24 ± 5.63 (5 - 29) | 0.584 |
mhc_psychological | 153 | 21.90 ± 6.39 (6 - 36) | 21.68 ± 6.09 (7 - 36) | 22.13 ± 6.72 (6 - 36) | 0.660 |
resilisnce | 153 | 16.54 ± 4.62 (6 - 30) | 16.17 ± 4.11 (6 - 24) | 16.91 ± 5.08 (6 - 30) | 0.324 |
social_provision | 153 | 13.52 ± 2.89 (5 - 20) | 13.12 ± 2.58 (5 - 20) | 13.92 ± 3.13 (5 - 20) | 0.085 |
els_value_living | 153 | 16.97 ± 3.11 (5 - 25) | 16.61 ± 2.88 (6 - 22) | 17.33 ± 3.30 (5 - 25) | 0.153 |
els_life_fulfill | 153 | 12.75 ± 3.37 (4 - 20) | 12.31 ± 3.23 (5 - 19) | 13.18 ± 3.48 (4 - 20) | 0.110 |
els | 153 | 29.71 ± 5.90 (9 - 45) | 28.92 ± 5.45 (11 - 38) | 30.51 ± 6.25 (9 - 45) | 0.095 |
social_connect | 153 | 26.50 ± 9.42 (8 - 48) | 26.88 ± 9.01 (8 - 48) | 26.11 ± 9.86 (8 - 48) | 0.611 |
shs_agency | 153 | 14.24 ± 5.10 (3 - 24) | 13.81 ± 4.69 (3 - 21) | 14.68 ± 5.47 (3 - 24) | 0.288 |
shs_pathway | 153 | 16.03 ± 4.00 (4 - 24) | 15.61 ± 3.85 (5 - 24) | 16.46 ± 4.12 (4 - 24) | 0.189 |
shs | 153 | 30.27 ± 8.68 (7 - 48) | 29.42 ± 8.16 (8 - 45) | 31.14 ± 9.16 (7 - 48) | 0.219 |
esteem | 153 | 12.58 ± 1.61 (9 - 20) | 12.57 ± 1.60 (9 - 18) | 12.58 ± 1.63 (10 - 20) | 0.977 |
mlq_search | 153 | 14.82 ± 3.52 (3 - 21) | 14.55 ± 3.42 (6 - 21) | 15.11 ± 3.61 (3 - 21) | 0.327 |
mlq_presence | 153 | 13.37 ± 4.31 (3 - 21) | 13.17 ± 3.97 (4 - 21) | 13.58 ± 4.65 (3 - 21) | 0.558 |
mlq | 153 | 28.20 ± 6.90 (6 - 42) | 27.71 ± 6.33 (10 - 40) | 28.68 ± 7.45 (6 - 42) | 0.387 |
empower | 153 | 19.24 ± 4.20 (6 - 30) | 18.88 ± 4.07 (11 - 30) | 19.61 ± 4.32 (6 - 30) | 0.289 |
ismi_resistance | 153 | 14.49 ± 2.47 (5 - 20) | 14.48 ± 2.13 (10 - 20) | 14.50 ± 2.80 (5 - 20) | 0.961 |
ismi_discrimation | 153 | 11.63 ± 3.08 (5 - 20) | 11.95 ± 2.94 (5 - 20) | 11.32 ± 3.21 (5 - 20) | 0.206 |
sss_affective | 153 | 9.99 ± 3.53 (3 - 18) | 10.01 ± 3.45 (3 - 18) | 9.96 ± 3.62 (3 - 18) | 0.927 |
sss_behavior | 153 | 9.68 ± 3.71 (3 - 18) | 9.86 ± 3.74 (3 - 18) | 9.50 ± 3.69 (3 - 18) | 0.553 |
sss_cognitive | 153 | 8.22 ± 3.71 (3 - 18) | 8.23 ± 3.67 (3 - 18) | 8.20 ± 3.77 (3 - 18) | 0.952 |
sss | 153 | 27.88 ± 10.12 (9 - 54) | 28.10 ± 10.00 (9 - 54) | 27.66 ± 10.31 (9 - 54) | 0.786 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.19 | 0.133 | 2.93, 3.46 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.050 | 0.189 | -0.420, 0.320 | 0.791 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.086 | 0.209 | -0.323, 0.495 | 0.681 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.393 | 0.297 | -0.189, 0.975 | 0.188 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.324 | 17.2, 18.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.104 | 0.459 | -0.797, 1.00 | 0.822 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.433 | 0.461 | -1.34, 0.470 | 0.350 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.05 | 0.657 | -0.235, 2.34 | 0.113 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.7 | 0.582 | 28.6, 30.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.457 | 0.825 | -1.16, 2.07 | 0.580 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.951 | 0.645 | -0.313, 2.21 | 0.145 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.925 | 0.919 | -0.876, 2.73 | 0.317 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.7 | 0.229 | 11.2, 12.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.219 | 0.325 | -0.417, 0.856 | 0.500 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.353 | 0.255 | -0.853, 0.148 | 0.171 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.654 | 0.364 | -0.059, 1.37 | 0.076 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.2 | 0.355 | 16.5, 17.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.384 | 0.503 | -0.602, 1.37 | 0.446 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.032 | 0.455 | -0.860, 0.923 | 0.945 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.787 | 0.648 | -0.483, 2.06 | 0.228 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.331 | 12.4, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.316 | 0.469 | -0.603, 1.24 | 0.501 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.357 | 0.377 | -0.383, 1.10 | 0.347 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.611 | 0.537 | -0.442, 1.66 | 0.259 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.1 | 0.267 | 9.59, 10.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.472 | 0.379 | -1.21, 0.270 | 0.214 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.305 | 0.362 | -1.02, 0.405 | 0.402 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.37 | 0.516 | 0.357, 2.38 | 0.010 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 29.8 | 1.041 | 27.7, 31.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.181 | 1.478 | -2.71, 3.08 | 0.903 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.599 | 0.925 | -2.41, 1.21 | 0.519 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.14 | 1.318 | -3.72, 1.45 | 0.392 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.8 | 0.548 | 21.8, 23.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.647 | 0.778 | -2.17, 0.877 | 0.407 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.511 | 0.599 | -1.69, 0.664 | 0.397 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.775 | 0.854 | -0.898, 2.45 | 0.367 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 24.8 | 0.678 | 23.4, 26.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.918 | 0.961 | -0.966, 2.80 | 0.341 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.508 | 0.718 | -1.91, 0.899 | 0.481 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.820 | 1.022 | -1.18, 2.82 | 0.425 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.6 | 0.816 | 18.0, 21.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.64 | 1.158 | -0.629, 3.91 | 0.158 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.747 | 0.868 | -0.954, 2.45 | 0.392 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.667 | 1.237 | -1.76, 3.09 | 0.592 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.6 | 0.429 | 9.73, 11.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.547 | 0.609 | -0.647, 1.74 | 0.370 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.277 | 0.428 | -0.562, 1.12 | 0.519 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.094 | 0.610 | -1.10, 1.29 | 0.878 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 14.7 | 0.657 | 13.5, 16.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.497 | 0.932 | -1.33, 2.32 | 0.595 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.507 | 0.731 | -0.925, 1.94 | 0.490 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.653 | 1.041 | -1.39, 2.69 | 0.532 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.7 | 0.755 | 20.2, 23.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.456 | 1.072 | -1.64, 2.56 | 0.671 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.850 | 0.835 | -0.787, 2.49 | 0.312 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.149 | 1.189 | -2.18, 2.48 | 0.901 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.2 | 0.519 | 15.2, 17.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.739 | 0.736 | -0.703, 2.18 | 0.316 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.361 | 0.618 | -0.851, 1.57 | 0.561 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.65 | 0.880 | -0.079, 3.37 | 0.065 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.038 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.328 | 12.5, 13.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.804 | 0.465 | -0.108, 1.72 | 0.086 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.615 | 0.396 | -1.39, 0.161 | 0.124 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.882 | 0.564 | -0.224, 1.99 | 0.122 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.039 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.6 | 0.358 | 15.9, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.719 | 0.508 | -0.278, 1.72 | 0.159 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.385 | 0.411 | -0.421, 1.19 | 0.352 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.154 | 0.586 | -0.993, 1.30 | 0.793 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.3 | 0.377 | 11.6, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.873 | 0.535 | -0.176, 1.92 | 0.105 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.512 | 0.373 | -0.220, 1.24 | 0.175 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.013 | 0.531 | -1.03, 1.05 | 0.981 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 28.9 | 0.673 | 27.6, 30.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.59 | 0.955 | -0.281, 3.46 | 0.098 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.902 | 0.647 | -0.366, 2.17 | 0.167 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.095 | 0.921 | -1.71, 1.90 | 0.918 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.024 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 26.9 | 1.087 | 24.8, 29.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.778 | 1.542 | -3.80, 2.24 | 0.615 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.610 | 1.037 | -1.42, 2.64 | 0.558 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.39 | 1.477 | -6.29, -0.500 | 0.024 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.8 | 0.578 | 12.7, 14.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.879 | 0.821 | -0.729, 2.49 | 0.286 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.189 | 0.580 | -0.947, 1.33 | 0.745 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.574 | 0.826 | -1.04, 2.19 | 0.489 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.6 | 0.448 | 14.7, 16.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.850 | 0.635 | -0.395, 2.10 | 0.183 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.239 | 0.463 | -0.669, 1.15 | 0.608 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.010 | 0.659 | -1.30, 1.28 | 0.988 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.4 | 0.977 | 27.5, 31.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.73 | 1.387 | -0.989, 4.45 | 0.214 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.419 | 0.961 | -1.46, 2.30 | 0.664 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.551 | 1.369 | -2.13, 3.23 | 0.688 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.6 | 0.172 | 12.2, 12.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.008 | 0.245 | -0.472, 0.487 | 0.976 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.168 | 0.264 | -0.348, 0.685 | 0.525 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.000 | 0.375 | -0.735, 0.736 | 0.999 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.5 | 0.397 | 13.8, 15.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.560 | 0.563 | -0.544, 1.66 | 0.321 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.431 | 0.509 | -0.567, 1.43 | 0.400 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.647 | 0.725 | -2.07, 0.775 | 0.375 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.488 | 12.2, 14.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.410 | 0.692 | -0.946, 1.77 | 0.554 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.576 | 0.559 | -0.520, 1.67 | 0.306 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.089 | 0.796 | -1.65, 1.47 | 0.911 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 27.7 | 0.790 | 26.2, 29.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.970 | 1.121 | -1.23, 3.17 | 0.388 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.998 | 0.925 | -0.816, 2.81 | 0.284 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.701 | 1.318 | -3.28, 1.88 | 0.596 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 18.9 | 0.475 | 18.0, 19.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.722 | 0.674 | -0.600, 2.04 | 0.286 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.689 | 0.477 | -0.246, 1.62 | 0.153 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.720 | 0.680 | -2.05, 0.612 | 0.293 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.5 | 0.278 | 13.9, 15.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.019 | 0.395 | -0.755, 0.794 | 0.961 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.146 | 0.377 | -0.885, 0.594 | 0.700 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.847 | 0.537 | -0.206, 1.90 | 0.118 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 11.9 | 0.354 | 11.3, 12.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.632 | 0.502 | -1.62, 0.352 | 0.210 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.154 | 0.396 | -0.930, 0.622 | 0.698 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.206 | 0.564 | -1.31, 0.899 | 0.715 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.0 | 0.400 | 9.23, 10.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.052 | 0.567 | -1.16, 1.06 | 0.926 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.115 | 0.433 | -0.964, 0.735 | 0.792 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.06 | 0.617 | -2.27, 0.153 | 0.091 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 9.86 | 0.419 | 9.04, 10.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.357 | 0.595 | -1.52, 0.809 | 0.549 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.240 | 0.451 | -1.12, 0.644 | 0.596 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.470 | 0.642 | -1.73, 0.789 | 0.467 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.23 | 0.417 | 7.42, 9.05 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.036 | 0.591 | -1.20, 1.12 | 0.951 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.296 | 0.463 | -0.611, 1.20 | 0.525 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.20 | 0.659 | -2.49, 0.093 | 0.073 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 28.1 | 1.149 | 25.9, 30.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.446 | 1.631 | -3.64, 2.75 | 0.785 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.137 | 1.129 | -2.35, 2.08 | 0.904 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.52 | 1.608 | -5.67, 0.630 | 0.121 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.35) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.19 (95% CI [2.93, 3.46], t(214) = 24.01, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.32], t(214) = -0.27, p = 0.791; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.49], t(214) = 0.41, p = 0.681; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.42])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.98], t(214) = 1.32, p = 0.185; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.83])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.48) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.87 (95% CI [17.24, 18.50], t(214) = 55.20, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.80, 1.00], t(214) = 0.23, p = 0.822; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.35])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-1.34, 0.47], t(214) = -0.94, p = 0.347; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.17])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-0.24, 2.34], t(214) = 1.60, p = 0.109; Std. beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.82])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.74 (95% CI [28.60, 30.88], t(214) = 51.14, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-1.16, 2.07], t(214) = 0.55, p = 0.580; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.95, 95% CI [-0.31, 2.21], t(214) = 1.47, p = 0.141; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.43])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.88, 2.73], t(214) = 1.01, p = 0.314; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.53])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.68 (95% CI [11.23, 12.12], t(214) = 51.03, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.86], t(214) = 0.68, p = 0.499; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.15], t(214) = -1.38, p = 0.167; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.07])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.37], t(214) = 1.80, p = 0.072; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.68])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.22 (95% CI [16.53, 17.92], t(214) = 48.55, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.37], t(214) = 0.76, p = 0.445; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.92], t(214) = 0.07, p = 0.945; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.48, 2.06], t(214) = 1.21, p = 0.225; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.66])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.05 (95% CI [12.40, 13.70], t(214) = 39.49, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.24], t(214) = 0.67, p = 0.500; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.38, 1.10], t(214) = 0.95, p = 0.344; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.66], t(214) = 1.14, p = 0.255; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.57])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.12 (95% CI [9.59, 10.64], t(214) = 37.89, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-1.21, 0.27], t(214) = -1.25, p = 0.213; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.12])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.02, 0.40], t(214) = -0.84, p = 0.400; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.17])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [0.36, 2.38], t(214) = 2.65, p = 0.008; Std. beta = 0.59, 95% CI [0.15, 1.02])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.31e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.75 (95% CI [27.71, 31.79], t(214) = 28.57, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-2.71, 3.08], t(214) = 0.12, p = 0.903; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.33])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.60, 95% CI [-2.41, 1.21], t(214) = -0.65, p = 0.517; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.14, 95% CI [-3.72, 1.45], t(214) = -0.86, p = 0.389; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.16])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.35e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.83 (95% CI [21.76, 23.91], t(214) = 41.66, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-2.17, 0.88], t(214) = -0.83, p = 0.405; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.18])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-1.69, 0.66], t(214) = -0.85, p = 0.394; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.14])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.90, 2.45], t(214) = 0.91, p = 0.364; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.51])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.75 (95% CI [23.43, 26.08], t(214) = 36.53, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.97, 2.80], t(214) = 0.95, p = 0.340; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-1.91, 0.90], t(214) = -0.71, p = 0.479; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.15])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [-1.18, 2.82], t(214) = 0.80, p = 0.422; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.48])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.65 (95% CI [18.05, 21.25], t(214) = 24.08, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.64, 95% CI [-0.63, 3.91], t(214) = 1.42, p = 0.157; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.54])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.95, 2.45], t(214) = 0.86, p = 0.389; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-1.76, 3.09], t(214) = 0.54, p = 0.590; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.39e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.57 (95% CI [9.73, 11.41], t(214) = 24.62, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.65, 1.74], t(214) = 0.90, p = 0.369; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.56, 1.12], t(214) = 0.65, p = 0.517; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-1.10, 1.29], t(214) = 0.15, p = 0.878; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.64e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.74 (95% CI [13.45, 16.03], t(214) = 22.44, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-1.33, 2.32], t(214) = 0.53, p = 0.594; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.92, 1.94], t(214) = 0.69, p = 0.487; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-1.39, 2.69], t(214) = 0.63, p = 0.530; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.47])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.54e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.68 (95% CI [20.19, 23.16], t(214) = 28.70, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-1.64, 2.56], t(214) = 0.43, p = 0.670; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.79, 2.49], t(214) = 1.02, p = 0.309; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-2.18, 2.48], t(214) = 0.13, p = 0.900; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.17 (95% CI [15.15, 17.19], t(214) = 31.18, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.70, 2.18], t(214) = 1.00, p = 0.315; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.85, 1.57], t(214) = 0.58, p = 0.560; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.65, 95% CI [-0.08, 3.37], t(214) = 1.87, p = 0.061; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.74])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.12 (95% CI [12.47, 13.76], t(214) = 40.00, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.11, 1.72], t(214) = 1.73, p = 0.084; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.58])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.39, 0.16], t(214) = -1.55, p = 0.120; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.88, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.99], t(214) = 1.56, p = 0.118; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.68])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.61 (95% CI [15.91, 17.31], t(214) = 46.35, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.72], t(214) = 1.41, p = 0.158; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.54])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.42, 1.19], t(214) = 0.94, p = 0.349; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.99, 1.30], t(214) = 0.26, p = 0.792; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.31 (95% CI [11.57, 13.05], t(214) = 32.66, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-0.18, 1.92], t(214) = 1.63, p = 0.103; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.58])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.24], t(214) = 1.37, p = 0.170; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-1.03, 1.05], t(214) = 0.02, p = 0.981; Std. beta = 3.80e-03, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.92 (95% CI [27.60, 30.24], t(214) = 42.95, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.59, 95% CI [-0.28, 3.46], t(214) = 1.67, p = 0.096; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.58])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-0.37, 2.17], t(214) = 1.39, p = 0.163; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-1.71, 1.90], t(214) = 0.10, p = 0.918; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.88 (95% CI [24.75, 29.01], t(214) = 24.73, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.78, 95% CI [-3.80, 2.24], t(214) = -0.50, p = 0.614; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.23])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-1.42, 2.64], t(214) = 0.59, p = 0.556; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.39, 95% CI [-6.29, -0.50], t(214) = -2.30, p = 0.022; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.65, -0.05])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.81 (95% CI [12.67, 14.94], t(214) = 23.87, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.88, 95% CI [-0.73, 2.49], t(214) = 1.07, p = 0.284; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.95, 1.33], t(214) = 0.33, p = 0.744; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-1.04, 2.19], t(214) = 0.70, p = 0.487; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.61 (95% CI [14.73, 16.49], t(214) = 34.87, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.39, 2.10], t(214) = 1.34, p = 0.181; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.53])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.67, 1.15], t(214) = 0.52, p = 0.606; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-1.30, 1.28], t(214) = -0.02, p = 0.988; Std. beta = -2.57e-03, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.42 (95% CI [27.50, 31.33], t(214) = 30.10, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.73, 95% CI [-0.99, 4.45], t(214) = 1.25, p = 0.212; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-1.46, 2.30], t(214) = 0.44, p = 0.663; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.13, 3.23], t(214) = 0.40, p = 0.687; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.38) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.64e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.57 (95% CI [12.23, 12.91], t(214) = 72.88, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 7.52e-03, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.49], t(214) = 0.03, p = 0.975; Std. beta = 5.03e-03, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.33])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.68], t(214) = 0.64, p = 0.523; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.46])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.10e-04, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.74], t(214) = 8.27e-04, p > .999; Std. beta = 2.08e-04, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.49])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.75e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.55 (95% CI [13.77, 15.32], t(214) = 36.65, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.54, 1.66], t(214) = 0.99, p = 0.320; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.43], t(214) = 0.85, p = 0.397; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-2.07, 0.77], t(214) = -0.89, p = 0.373; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.27e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.17 (95% CI [12.21, 14.12], t(214) = 27.00, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.95, 1.77], t(214) = 0.59, p = 0.553; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.67], t(214) = 1.03, p = 0.303; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-1.65, 1.47], t(214) = -0.11, p = 0.911; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.37e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.71 (95% CI [26.17, 29.26], t(214) = 35.08, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-1.23, 3.17], t(214) = 0.87, p = 0.387; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.82, 2.81], t(214) = 1.08, p = 0.281; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-3.28, 1.88], t(214) = -0.53, p = 0.595; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.53e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.88 (95% CI [17.95, 19.81], t(214) = 39.72, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.60, 2.04], t(214) = 1.07, p = 0.284; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.25, 1.62], t(214) = 1.44, p = 0.149; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.72, 95% CI [-2.05, 0.61], t(214) = -1.06, p = 0.289; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.15])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.48 (95% CI [13.93, 15.03], t(214) = 52.00, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.79], t(214) = 0.05, p = 0.961; Std. beta = 7.87e-03, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.32])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.89, 0.59], t(214) = -0.39, p = 0.699; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.21, 1.90], t(214) = 1.58, p = 0.115; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.77])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.95 (95% CI [11.25, 12.64], t(214) = 33.76, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.62, 0.35], t(214) = -1.26, p = 0.208; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.11])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.62], t(214) = -0.39, p = 0.697; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-1.31, 0.90], t(214) = -0.37, p = 0.714; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.01 (95% CI [9.23, 10.80], t(214) = 25.05, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-1.16, 1.06], t(214) = -0.09, p = 0.926; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.73], t(214) = -0.26, p = 0.791; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-2.27, 0.15], t(214) = -1.71, p = 0.087; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.04])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.90e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.86 (95% CI [9.04, 10.68], t(214) = 23.50, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.52, 0.81], t(214) = -0.60, p = 0.548; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-1.12, 0.64], t(214) = -0.53, p = 0.594; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.17])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-1.73, 0.79], t(214) = -0.73, p = 0.465; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.21])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.23 (95% CI [7.42, 9.05], t(214) = 19.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.20, 1.12], t(214) = -0.06, p = 0.951; Std. beta = -9.85e-03, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.20], t(214) = 0.64, p = 0.523; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.20, 95% CI [-2.49, 0.09], t(214) = -1.82, p = 0.069; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.10 (95% CI [25.85, 30.36], t(214) = 24.45, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-3.64, 2.75], t(214) = -0.27, p = 0.784; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-2.35, 2.08], t(214) = -0.12, p = 0.903; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.52, 95% CI [-5.67, 0.63], t(214) = -1.57, p = 0.117; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.06])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 691.995 | 702.176 | -342.997 | 685.995 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 692.622 | 712.984 | -340.311 | 680.622 | 5.373 | 3 | 0.146 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 1,071.971 | 1,082.152 | -532.986 | 1,065.971 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 1,074.544 | 1,094.906 | -531.272 | 1,062.544 | 3.427 | 3 | 0.330 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 1,308.453 | 1,318.634 | -651.227 | 1,302.453 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 1,303.580 | 1,323.942 | -645.790 | 1,291.580 | 10.873 | 3 | 0.012 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 892.595 | 902.776 | -443.297 | 886.595 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 893.851 | 914.213 | -440.926 | 881.851 | 4.743 | 3 | 0.192 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 1,101.903 | 1,112.084 | -547.952 | 1,095.903 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 1,103.253 | 1,123.615 | -545.627 | 1,091.253 | 4.650 | 3 | 0.199 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 1,060.665 | 1,070.846 | -527.332 | 1,054.665 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 1,058.451 | 1,078.813 | -523.225 | 1,046.451 | 8.214 | 3 | 0.042 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 987.312 | 997.493 | -490.656 | 981.312 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 984.586 | 1,004.947 | -486.293 | 972.586 | 8.726 | 3 | 0.033 |
symptom | null | 3 | 1,530.047 | 1,540.228 | -762.024 | 1,524.047 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 1,532.208 | 1,552.570 | -760.104 | 1,520.208 | 3.839 | 3 | 0.279 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 1,271.090 | 1,281.270 | -632.545 | 1,265.090 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 1,275.774 | 1,296.136 | -631.887 | 1,263.774 | 1.316 | 3 | 0.725 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 1,361.328 | 1,371.509 | -677.664 | 1,355.328 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 1,365.182 | 1,385.544 | -676.591 | 1,353.182 | 2.146 | 3 | 0.543 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 1,447.485 | 1,457.666 | -720.743 | 1,441.485 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 1,447.571 | 1,467.933 | -717.786 | 1,435.571 | 5.914 | 3 | 0.116 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 1,153.043 | 1,163.223 | -573.521 | 1,147.043 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 1,156.946 | 1,177.308 | -572.473 | 1,144.946 | 2.096 | 3 | 0.553 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 1,354.965 | 1,365.146 | -674.482 | 1,348.965 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 1,357.496 | 1,377.858 | -672.748 | 1,345.496 | 3.469 | 3 | 0.325 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 1,414.883 | 1,425.063 | -704.441 | 1,408.883 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 1,418.199 | 1,438.561 | -703.100 | 1,406.199 | 2.684 | 3 | 0.443 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 1,268.515 | 1,278.696 | -631.257 | 1,262.515 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 1,261.769 | 1,282.131 | -624.885 | 1,249.769 | 12.746 | 3 | 0.005 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 1,063.819 | 1,074.000 | -528.910 | 1,057.819 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 1,061.716 | 1,082.077 | -524.858 | 1,049.716 | 8.104 | 3 | 0.044 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 1,093.586 | 1,103.767 | -543.793 | 1,087.586 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 1,094.632 | 1,114.993 | -541.316 | 1,082.632 | 4.954 | 3 | 0.175 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 1,099.419 | 1,109.600 | -546.709 | 1,093.419 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 1,098.775 | 1,119.137 | -543.388 | 1,086.775 | 6.644 | 3 | 0.084 |
els | null | 3 | 1,351.496 | 1,361.677 | -672.748 | 1,345.496 | |||
els | random | 6 | 1,350.234 | 1,370.596 | -669.117 | 1,338.234 | 7.262 | 3 | 0.064 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 1,562.423 | 1,572.604 | -778.211 | 1,556.423 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 1,560.069 | 1,580.431 | -774.034 | 1,548.069 | 8.354 | 3 | 0.039 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 1,286.123 | 1,296.304 | -640.062 | 1,280.123 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 1,288.685 | 1,309.046 | -638.342 | 1,276.685 | 3.439 | 3 | 0.329 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 1,176.282 | 1,186.463 | -585.141 | 1,170.282 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 1,179.878 | 1,200.240 | -583.939 | 1,167.878 | 2.404 | 3 | 0.493 |
shs | null | 3 | 1,514.184 | 1,524.365 | -754.092 | 1,508.184 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 1,517.085 | 1,537.446 | -752.542 | 1,505.085 | 3.099 | 3 | 0.377 |
esteem | null | 3 | 799.297 | 809.478 | -396.648 | 793.297 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 804.474 | 824.836 | -396.237 | 792.474 | 0.823 | 3 | 0.844 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 1,148.132 | 1,158.313 | -571.066 | 1,142.132 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 1,152.658 | 1,173.020 | -570.329 | 1,140.658 | 1.474 | 3 | 0.688 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 1,226.345 | 1,236.526 | -610.172 | 1,220.345 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 1,230.177 | 1,250.539 | -609.089 | 1,218.177 | 2.168 | 3 | 0.538 |
mlq | null | 3 | 1,440.783 | 1,450.964 | -717.392 | 1,434.783 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 1,444.940 | 1,465.302 | -716.470 | 1,432.940 | 1.843 | 3 | 0.606 |
empower | null | 3 | 1,199.396 | 1,209.577 | -596.698 | 1,193.396 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 1,202.561 | 1,222.922 | -595.280 | 1,190.561 | 2.835 | 3 | 0.418 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 1,000.896 | 1,011.076 | -497.448 | 994.896 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 1,002.968 | 1,023.330 | -495.484 | 990.968 | 3.927 | 3 | 0.269 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 1,083.034 | 1,093.215 | -538.517 | 1,077.034 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 1,086.125 | 1,106.487 | -537.063 | 1,074.125 | 2.909 | 3 | 0.406 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 1,137.324 | 1,147.505 | -565.662 | 1,131.324 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 1,135.849 | 1,156.211 | -561.925 | 1,123.849 | 7.475 | 3 | 0.058 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 1,153.391 | 1,163.572 | -573.695 | 1,147.391 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 1,156.005 | 1,176.367 | -572.002 | 1,144.005 | 3.386 | 3 | 0.336 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 1,155.645 | 1,165.825 | -574.822 | 1,149.645 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 1,157.180 | 1,177.541 | -572.590 | 1,145.180 | 4.465 | 3 | 0.215 |
sss | null | 3 | 1,588.181 | 1,598.362 | -791.090 | 1,582.181 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 1,588.322 | 1,608.684 | -788.161 | 1,576.322 | 5.858 | 3 | 0.119 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 77 | 3.19 ± 1.17 | 76 | 3.14 ± 1.17 | 0.791 | 0.053 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 34 | 3.28 ± 1.14 | -0.090 | 33 | 3.62 ± 1.14 | -0.503 | 0.218 | -0.360 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 77 | 17.87 ± 2.84 | 76 | 17.97 ± 2.84 | 0.822 | -0.050 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 34 | 17.44 ± 2.67 | 0.211 | 33 | 18.59 ± 2.67 | -0.301 | 0.078 | -0.561 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 77 | 29.74 ± 5.10 | 76 | 30.20 ± 5.10 | 0.580 | -0.165 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 34 | 30.69 ± 4.35 | -0.342 | 33 | 32.07 ± 4.34 | -0.675 | 0.195 | -0.498 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 77 | 11.68 ± 2.01 | 76 | 11.89 ± 2.01 | 0.500 | -0.200 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 34 | 11.32 ± 1.72 | 0.321 | 33 | 12.20 ± 1.71 | -0.274 | 0.038 | -0.794 |
ras_goal | 1st | 77 | 17.22 ± 3.11 | 76 | 17.61 ± 3.11 | 0.446 | -0.193 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 34 | 17.25 ± 2.81 | -0.016 | 33 | 18.42 ± 2.80 | -0.411 | 0.089 | -0.588 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 77 | 13.05 ± 2.90 | 76 | 13.37 ± 2.90 | 0.501 | -0.194 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 34 | 13.41 ± 2.50 | -0.219 | 33 | 14.34 ± 2.49 | -0.594 | 0.130 | -0.570 |
ras_domination | 1st | 77 | 10.12 ± 2.34 | 76 | 9.64 ± 2.34 | 0.214 | 0.295 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 34 | 9.81 ± 2.16 | 0.191 | 33 | 10.71 ± 2.16 | -0.663 | 0.091 | -0.559 |
symptom | 1st | 77 | 29.75 ± 9.14 | 76 | 29.93 ± 9.14 | 0.903 | -0.046 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 34 | 29.15 ± 7.25 | 0.153 | 33 | 28.20 ± 7.22 | 0.443 | 0.590 | 0.244 |
slof_work | 1st | 77 | 22.83 ± 4.81 | 76 | 22.18 ± 4.81 | 0.407 | 0.251 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 34 | 22.32 ± 4.08 | 0.198 | 33 | 22.45 ± 4.07 | -0.103 | 0.898 | -0.050 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 77 | 24.75 ± 5.95 | 76 | 25.67 ± 5.95 | 0.341 | -0.298 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 34 | 24.25 ± 4.99 | 0.165 | 33 | 25.98 ± 4.97 | -0.101 | 0.155 | -0.565 |
satisfaction | 1st | 77 | 19.65 ± 7.16 | 76 | 21.29 ± 7.16 | 0.158 | -0.441 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 34 | 20.40 ± 6.02 | -0.201 | 33 | 22.70 ± 6.00 | -0.380 | 0.118 | -0.620 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 77 | 10.57 ± 3.77 | 76 | 11.12 ± 3.77 | 0.370 | -0.299 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 34 | 10.85 ± 3.10 | -0.152 | 33 | 11.49 ± 3.09 | -0.203 | 0.397 | -0.351 |
mhc_social | 1st | 77 | 14.74 ± 5.76 | 76 | 15.24 ± 5.76 | 0.595 | -0.158 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 34 | 15.25 ± 4.92 | -0.161 | 33 | 16.40 ± 4.91 | -0.369 | 0.339 | -0.365 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 77 | 21.68 ± 6.63 | 76 | 22.13 ± 6.63 | 0.671 | -0.127 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 34 | 22.53 ± 5.64 | -0.237 | 33 | 23.13 ± 5.63 | -0.278 | 0.661 | -0.168 |
resilisnce | 1st | 77 | 16.17 ± 4.55 | 76 | 16.91 ± 4.55 | 0.316 | -0.276 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 34 | 16.53 ± 3.98 | -0.134 | 33 | 18.92 ± 3.98 | -0.748 | 0.015 | -0.890 |
social_provision | 1st | 77 | 13.12 ± 2.88 | 76 | 13.92 ± 2.88 | 0.086 | -0.467 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 34 | 12.50 ± 2.53 | 0.357 | 33 | 14.19 ± 2.53 | -0.155 | 0.007 | -0.979 |
els_value_living | 1st | 77 | 16.61 ± 3.14 | 76 | 17.33 ± 3.14 | 0.159 | -0.405 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 34 | 17.00 ± 2.71 | -0.217 | 33 | 17.87 ± 2.71 | -0.304 | 0.189 | -0.492 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 77 | 12.31 ± 3.31 | 76 | 13.18 ± 3.31 | 0.105 | -0.549 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 34 | 12.82 ± 2.71 | -0.322 | 33 | 13.71 ± 2.70 | -0.330 | 0.182 | -0.557 |
els | 1st | 77 | 28.92 ± 5.91 | 76 | 30.51 ± 5.91 | 0.098 | -0.578 | ||
els | 2nd | 34 | 29.82 ± 4.80 | -0.328 | 33 | 31.51 ± 4.78 | -0.362 | 0.151 | -0.613 |
social_connect | 1st | 77 | 26.88 ± 9.54 | 76 | 26.11 ± 9.54 | 0.615 | 0.176 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 34 | 27.49 ± 7.73 | -0.138 | 33 | 23.32 ± 7.70 | 0.632 | 0.028 | 0.946 |
shs_agency | 1st | 77 | 13.81 ± 5.07 | 76 | 14.68 ± 5.07 | 0.286 | -0.355 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 34 | 13.99 ± 4.18 | -0.077 | 33 | 15.45 ± 4.17 | -0.309 | 0.156 | -0.587 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 77 | 15.61 ± 3.93 | 76 | 16.46 ± 3.93 | 0.183 | -0.429 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 34 | 15.85 ± 3.27 | -0.120 | 33 | 16.69 ± 3.26 | -0.115 | 0.293 | -0.424 |
shs | 1st | 77 | 29.42 ± 8.58 | 76 | 31.14 ± 8.58 | 0.214 | -0.422 | ||
shs | 2nd | 34 | 29.83 ± 7.02 | -0.102 | 33 | 32.12 ± 6.99 | -0.237 | 0.184 | -0.557 |
esteem | 1st | 77 | 12.57 ± 1.51 | 76 | 12.58 ± 1.51 | 0.976 | -0.006 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 34 | 12.74 ± 1.46 | -0.141 | 33 | 12.75 ± 1.46 | -0.141 | 0.983 | -0.007 |
mlq_search | 1st | 77 | 14.55 ± 3.48 | 76 | 15.11 ± 3.48 | 0.321 | -0.251 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 34 | 14.98 ± 3.14 | -0.193 | 33 | 14.89 ± 3.13 | 0.097 | 0.910 | 0.039 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 77 | 13.17 ± 4.28 | 76 | 13.58 ± 4.28 | 0.554 | -0.170 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 34 | 13.74 ± 3.69 | -0.239 | 33 | 14.07 ± 3.69 | -0.201 | 0.722 | -0.133 |
mlq | 1st | 77 | 27.71 ± 6.93 | 76 | 28.68 ± 6.93 | 0.388 | -0.242 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 34 | 28.71 ± 6.03 | -0.249 | 33 | 28.98 ± 6.02 | -0.074 | 0.855 | -0.067 |
empower | 1st | 77 | 18.88 ± 4.17 | 76 | 19.61 ± 4.17 | 0.286 | -0.355 | ||
empower | 2nd | 34 | 19.57 ± 3.44 | -0.338 | 33 | 19.57 ± 3.43 | 0.015 | 0.998 | -0.001 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 77 | 14.48 ± 2.44 | 76 | 14.50 ± 2.44 | 0.961 | -0.012 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 34 | 14.33 ± 2.25 | 0.087 | 33 | 15.20 ± 2.25 | -0.421 | 0.116 | -0.520 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 77 | 11.95 ± 3.11 | 76 | 11.32 ± 3.11 | 0.210 | 0.371 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 34 | 11.79 ± 2.66 | 0.090 | 33 | 10.96 ± 2.65 | 0.211 | 0.197 | 0.492 |
sss_affective | 1st | 77 | 10.01 ± 3.51 | 76 | 9.96 ± 3.51 | 0.926 | 0.028 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 34 | 9.90 ± 2.97 | 0.062 | 33 | 8.79 ± 2.96 | 0.630 | 0.127 | 0.596 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 77 | 9.86 ± 3.68 | 76 | 9.50 ± 3.68 | 0.549 | 0.185 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 34 | 9.62 ± 3.10 | 0.124 | 33 | 8.79 ± 3.10 | 0.367 | 0.276 | 0.427 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 77 | 8.23 ± 3.66 | 76 | 8.20 ± 3.66 | 0.951 | 0.018 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 34 | 8.53 ± 3.12 | -0.148 | 33 | 7.29 ± 3.11 | 0.453 | 0.106 | 0.620 |
sss | 1st | 77 | 28.10 ± 10.09 | 76 | 27.66 ± 10.09 | 0.785 | 0.093 | ||
sss | 2nd | 34 | 27.97 ± 8.25 | 0.028 | 33 | 25.00 ± 8.22 | 0.553 | 0.142 | 0.617 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(202.97) = -0.27, p = 0.791, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.32)
2st
t(208.06) = 1.23, p = 0.218, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.21 to 0.89)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(192.03) = 0.23, p = 0.822, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.80 to 1.01)
2st
t(204.98) = 1.77, p = 0.078, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.13 to 2.44)
ras_confidence
1st
t(172.91) = 0.55, p = 0.580, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.17 to 2.09)
2st
t(211.08) = 1.30, p = 0.195, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.71 to 3.47)
ras_willingness
1st
t(173.25) = 0.68, p = 0.500, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.86)
2st
t(210.84) = 2.09, p = 0.038, Cohen d = -0.79, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.70)
ras_goal
1st
t(182.45) = 0.76, p = 0.446, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.38)
2st
t(205.97) = 1.71, p = 0.089, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-0.18 to 2.52)
ras_reliance
1st
t(174.52) = 0.67, p = 0.501, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.24)
2st
t(209.96) = 1.52, p = 0.130, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.27 to 2.13)
ras_domination
1st
t(187.28) = -1.25, p = 0.214, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-1.22 to 0.28)
2st
t(204.98) = 1.70, p = 0.091, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.94)
symptom
1st
t(164.01) = 0.12, p = 0.903, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-2.74 to 3.10)
2st
t(216.00) = -0.54, p = 0.590, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-4.44 to 2.53)
slof_work
1st
t(172.20) = -0.83, p = 0.407, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-2.18 to 0.89)
2st
t(211.59) = 0.13, p = 0.898, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.83 to 2.09)
slof_relationship
1st
t(170.62) = 0.95, p = 0.341, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.98 to 2.82)
2st
t(212.74) = 1.43, p = 0.155, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.66 to 4.14)
satisfaction
1st
t(170.83) = 1.42, p = 0.158, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.65 to 3.93)
2st
t(212.59) = 1.57, p = 0.118, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.59 to 5.20)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(168.02) = 0.90, p = 0.370, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.66 to 1.75)
2st
t(214.52) = 0.85, p = 0.397, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.85 to 2.13)
mhc_social
1st
t(173.07) = 0.53, p = 0.595, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.34 to 2.34)
2st
t(210.96) = 0.96, p = 0.339, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-1.22 to 3.52)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(172.75) = 0.43, p = 0.671, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.66 to 2.57)
2st
t(211.19) = 0.44, p = 0.661, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-2.11 to 3.32)
resilisnce
1st
t(177.17) = 1.00, p = 0.316, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.71 to 2.19)
2st
t(208.32) = 2.45, p = 0.015, Cohen d = -0.89, 95% CI (0.47 to 4.30)
social_provision
1st
t(178.06) = 1.73, p = 0.086, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.11 to 1.72)
2st
t(207.84) = 2.73, p = 0.007, Cohen d = -0.98, 95% CI (0.47 to 2.91)
els_value_living
1st
t(174.81) = 1.41, p = 0.159, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.72)
2st
t(209.77) = 1.32, p = 0.189, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.43 to 2.18)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(167.70) = 1.63, p = 0.105, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.93)
2st
t(214.72) = 1.34, p = 0.182, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.42 to 2.19)
els
1st
t(166.58) = 1.67, p = 0.098, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.30 to 3.48)
2st
t(215.33) = 1.44, p = 0.151, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-0.62 to 3.99)
social_connect
1st
t(166.33) = -0.50, p = 0.615, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-3.82 to 2.27)
2st
t(215.45) = -2.21, p = 0.028, Cohen d = 0.95, 95% CI (-7.89 to -0.46)
shs_agency
1st
t(168.22) = 1.07, p = 0.286, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.74 to 2.50)
2st
t(214.40) = 1.43, p = 0.156, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-0.56 to 3.46)
shs_pathway
1st
t(169.52) = 1.34, p = 0.183, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.40 to 2.10)
2st
t(213.52) = 1.05, p = 0.293, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.73 to 2.41)
shs
1st
t(167.45) = 1.25, p = 0.214, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-1.01 to 4.47)
2st
t(214.87) = 1.33, p = 0.184, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-1.09 to 5.65)
esteem
1st
t(199.90) = 0.03, p = 0.976, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.48 to 0.49)
2st
t(206.81) = 0.02, p = 0.983, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.70 to 0.71)
mlq_search
1st
t(182.45) = 0.99, p = 0.321, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.55 to 1.67)
2st
t(205.97) = -0.11, p = 0.910, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.60 to 1.42)
mlq_presence
1st
t(174.76) = 0.59, p = 0.554, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.96 to 1.78)
2st
t(209.80) = 0.36, p = 0.722, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.46 to 2.10)
mlq
1st
t(176.06) = 0.87, p = 0.388, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.24 to 3.18)
2st
t(208.98) = 0.18, p = 0.855, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.63 to 3.17)
empower
1st
t(168.27) = 1.07, p = 0.286, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.61 to 2.05)
2st
t(214.36) = 0.00, p = 0.998, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-1.65 to 1.65)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(187.16) = 0.05, p = 0.961, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.76 to 0.80)
2st
t(204.99) = 1.58, p = 0.116, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.95)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(173.40) = -1.26, p = 0.210, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.62 to 0.36)
2st
t(210.73) = -1.29, p = 0.197, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-2.12 to 0.44)
sss_affective
1st
t(171.74) = -0.09, p = 0.926, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.17 to 1.07)
2st
t(211.92) = -1.53, p = 0.127, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-2.54 to 0.32)
sss_behavior
1st
t(171.33) = -0.60, p = 0.549, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.53 to 0.82)
2st
t(212.22) = -1.09, p = 0.276, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-2.32 to 0.67)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(172.96) = -0.06, p = 0.951, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.20 to 1.13)
2st
t(211.04) = -1.62, p = 0.106, Cohen d = 0.62, 95% CI (-2.74 to 0.27)
sss
1st
t(167.41) = -0.27, p = 0.785, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-3.67 to 2.77)
2st
t(214.89) = -1.48, p = 0.142, Cohen d = 0.62, 95% CI (-6.94 to 1.00)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(103.94) = 2.25, p = 0.053, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.06 to 0.90)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(92.91) = 1.32, p = 0.383, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.31 to 1.55)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(78.40) = 2.86, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (0.57 to 3.18)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(78.62) = 1.16, p = 0.500, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.82)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(85.15) = 1.77, p = 0.162, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.10 to 1.74)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(79.48) = 2.52, p = 0.027, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.20 to 1.73)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(88.91) = 2.88, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (0.33 to 1.80)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(72.68) = -1.84, p = 0.138, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-3.61 to 0.14)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(77.92) = 0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.48)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(76.88) = 0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.77)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(77.02) = 1.60, p = 0.227, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.35 to 3.17)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(75.20) = 0.85, p = 0.794, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.50 to 1.24)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(78.51) = 1.56, p = 0.245, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.32 to 2.64)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(78.29) = 1.17, p = 0.487, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.69 to 2.69)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(81.32) = 3.19, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (0.75 to 3.26)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(81.95) = 0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.54 to 1.07)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(79.68) = 1.29, p = 0.403, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.37)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(74.99) = 1.38, p = 0.343, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.23 to 1.28)
els
1st vs 2st
t(74.28) = 1.52, p = 0.268, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.31 to 2.31)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(74.12) = -2.64, p = 0.020, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-4.89 to -0.68)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(75.32) = 1.29, p = 0.399, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.94)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(76.16) = 0.48, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.71 to 1.17)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(74.83) = 0.99, p = 0.648, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.98 to 2.92)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(100.50) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.70)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(85.16) = -0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.25 to 0.82)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(79.65) = 0.85, p = 0.790, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.65 to 1.62)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(80.54) = 0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.58 to 2.17)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(75.36) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.00 to 0.94)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(88.82) = 1.82, p = 0.143, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.47)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(78.72) = -0.89, p = 0.748, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.16 to 0.44)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(77.62) = -2.66, p = 0.019, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-2.05 to -0.29)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(77.35) = -1.55, p = 0.252, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.62 to 0.20)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(78.43) = -1.92, p = 0.118, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-1.84 to 0.03)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(74.81) = -2.32, p = 0.047, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-4.95 to -0.37)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(103.30) = 0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.50)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(92.47) = -0.93, p = 0.704, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.35 to 0.49)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(78.20) = 1.47, p = 0.292, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.34 to 2.24)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(78.42) = -1.38, p = 0.345, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-0.86 to 0.16)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(84.85) = 0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.88 to 0.94)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(79.27) = 0.94, p = 0.698, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.11)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(88.54) = -0.84, p = 0.808, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.03 to 0.42)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(72.57) = -0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-2.45 to 1.25)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(77.74) = -0.85, p = 0.796, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.71 to 0.69)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(76.71) = -0.71, p = 0.965, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.94 to 0.93)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(76.84) = 0.86, p = 0.787, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.99 to 2.48)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(75.05) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.13)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(78.31) = 0.69, p = 0.982, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.97)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(78.10) = 1.01, p = 0.627, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.82 to 2.52)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(81.08) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.87 to 1.60)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(81.69) = -1.55, p = 0.252, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.41 to 0.18)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(79.47) = 0.93, p = 0.708, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.44 to 1.21)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(74.85) = 1.37, p = 0.351, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.23 to 1.26)
els
1st vs 2st
t(74.15) = 1.39, p = 0.337, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.39 to 2.19)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(73.99) = 0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.46 to 2.68)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(75.18) = 0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.97 to 1.35)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(76.00) = 0.51, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.69 to 1.16)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(74.69) = 0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.50 to 2.34)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(99.92) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.69)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(84.85) = 0.84, p = 0.804, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.45)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(79.43) = 1.03, p = 0.615, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.54 to 1.69)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(80.31) = 1.07, p = 0.572, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.85 to 2.85)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(75.21) = 1.44, p = 0.308, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.64)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(88.45) = -0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-0.90 to 0.61)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(78.52) = -0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-0.95 to 0.64)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(77.43) = -0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.98 to 0.75)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(77.17) = -0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.14 to 0.66)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(78.23) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.22)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(74.67) = -0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.39 to 2.12)